TalkLeft Discussion Forums

State v. George Zimmerman (Pre-Trial) => Court Matters => Topic started by: RickyJim on June 07, 2013, 07:01:49 AM

Title: June 7th Hearing
Post by: RickyJim on June 07, 2013, 07:01:49 AM
I think a new thread is appropriate for today's hearing.  I have seen a report that O'Mara is stuck in traffic so the hearing start will be delayed.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: RickyJim on June 07, 2013, 07:31:50 AM
Another Matt Gutman exclusive (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/trayvon-martin-case-voice-recording-emerges-lawyers-ready-19346403). Trayvon's voice.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 07, 2013, 07:41:39 AM
Well isn't that interesting.

The ABC report also included an audio expert not affiliated with either side who, upon listening to this bit of TM's voice, concludes it's much more likely the voice screaming for help was GZ's.

Found in the cache of the phone. Only recently available to the defense. Perhaps part of what the state of FL was trying to hide.

An interesting report from ABC and Mr. Gutman, all in all.

And this just comes out today? Can MoM mention it to Nelson, like..."hey, remember yesterday you said nothing they held back effected us at all...?"

Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: Cylinder on June 07, 2013, 07:50:43 AM
Owen screwed up there. It needs 20 seconds but can get by with less than 20 seconds. That means there are no objective standards. Basically, his objective standard is "the software."
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: RickyJim on June 07, 2013, 07:51:43 AM
He is saying what the NSA and CIA do.  How the hell does he know?
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 07, 2013, 07:52:25 AM
Owen screwed up there. It needs 20 seconds but can get by with less than 20 seconds. That means there are no objective standards. Basically, his objective standard is "the software."

Didn't he say 16 seconds?

And that was his reason for looping what he had to make into a 16 second tape.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 07, 2013, 07:53:11 AM
He didn't even have the complete tape?

Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 07, 2013, 07:55:29 AM
Is Shellie in court, btw? Or any of Family Zimmerman besides Robert?
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: cboldt on June 07, 2013, 07:56:32 AM
State's first witness is Tom Owen.  This is a $3,300 day for him, on the taxpayer's of Florida dime.

Makes a dig at lawyers, joking.  He was considering becoming a lawyer, but didn't.  "The world doesn't need another lawyer."

He names off the organizations he started, and is a member of.  State starts to call him "Dr. Owen" then self corrects to "Mr. Owen."  He has testified in the state of Florida (not disqualified).  Owen's first client in this case was Orlando Sentinel, via Jeff Weiner.

Owen took up scream ID in 1985, using aural spectrographic methods.  He says even if the person is under duress, the spectrograms show identifiable signs.  Goes though example of speaking in higher pitch, but I don't understand his point or conclusion.  Says he uses critical listening in addition to spectrograms.

The software he uses wants to have 16 seconds and 20 words, but it can work with less.  So, he fed the same material in, twice.  Used Zimmerman's voice from the re-enactment when he said "help me" (not sure which reenactment).  The state asks "What are you trying to do?"  Owen answers that he was trying to find who was screaming, and Owen had no exemplar of Martin.  Owen describes EZ-Voice.  Comes from Russia, and is used to automate spectrographic analyses.

Easier to eliminate a person, via analysis, than identify.  Owen sent the state something the other day, I assume this is a preview of testimony.

Owen has a speech affectation, often saying "okay."  An average presenter.  Not interesting to listen to, wanders.  I'm going to listen to him, but probably no more notes until he's cross examined.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: cboldt on June 07, 2013, 07:57:56 AM
He didn't even have the complete tape?

He's describing the work he did for Weiner at Orlando Sentinel.  That would have been done with mp3 files produced by the SPD.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: RickyJim on June 07, 2013, 08:01:50 AM
I still want to know how many times scream identification has been used in court.  I have never heard of it done before.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 07, 2013, 08:03:50 AM
I still want to know how many times scream identification has been used in court.  I have never heard of it done before.

I have a problem with comparing honest screams of terror with a soft spoken reenactment.

Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: jjr495 on June 07, 2013, 08:13:10 AM
Just as I suspected. He paid a foreign group to produce the software. His attempt at explaining GMM was laughable. He doesn't understand the algorithm enough to re-write the EVB software description into legible English.
I can't find where Owen has published his scream work anywhere.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: cboldt on June 07, 2013, 08:13:22 AM
Owen's conclusion that it was not Zimmerman's voice was obtained by noting absence of semitones in the scream recording, vs. Zimmerman's usual speaking voice.  He increased the pitch of the normal speaking voice to match the pitch in the screams.  With the basic pitch being equalized, the semitone peaks did not match, between the two samples.  Semitone is a musical term, that can be corrollated with "harmonics."  Generally, they are defined points between octaves of pitch.  With semitones, the octave is carved into 12 tones.  Harmonics naturally occur in vibrating objects, and the harmonics don;t necessarily land exactly on semitone frequencies.

Owen describes extracting "fscking punks" from the recording.  I don't know if this has any bearing on the testimony the state intends to have him proffer.

Sidebar after the state asks about Owen being contacted by the defense.  Long sidebar, just now breaking up.  First question is relative likelihood that the scream was Zimmerman.  Owen will explain from the latest EZ-Voice printout or report.  Zimmerman is a 33% match against the screams, 68% match against his voice(?)  Not sure what the precise references were.

State asks if its common for the experts to disagree.  Owen shoots himself in the foot by saying they are just like lawers, of course they disagree.  Direct exam over.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: jjr495 on June 07, 2013, 08:18:43 AM
Owen said he compiled all of the screams and we heard his compilation. He assumes that all the screams are one person. How does he know this? Two other state witnesses say those screams are different people.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 07, 2013, 08:20:35 AM
How come no one is asking him why he owns the Easy Voice website? He's trying to say "they" as though EV is separate from him somehow.

Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: cboldt on June 07, 2013, 08:34:30 AM
West, on cross exam, elicits that Owen's math background is insufficient to explain how the algorithm of analysis works.  West offers Owen to explain what "Gaussian" means.  Owen fails at that.  West asks if the software has been submitted to NIST for evaluation.  Owen doesn't know if the package that he has has been submitted, but the software company has submitted to NIST.  Owen refers to a document from NIST to a person in the US who is in the software.  West asks if it can be provided to him.  Did Owen provide this to Mantei?  Yes, maybe Monday.  West also asks if Owen has the transcript - yes, it is embedded in the Soundforge output - as the sound plays, the "words" appear on the screen.  Mantei can;t reproduce this in court, lacking Soundforge.  West just wants to clarify that there is no written transcript, and asks Owen to repeat what he said.  Soundforge does not recognize speech - Owen typed in the words he thought he heard, as it played.  Owen identified 8 of 10 sounds as English words in the nature of "help" or "help me."

Objection from Mantei, I think, that this line of questioning is outside the scope of qualification, as this gets into word identification, and Owen will not be called to perform word identification.

Sound person on the stream has Nelson's microphone muted.  I can't make sense of what she's saying.  The issue is all around timing of testimony, and whether or not word identification is part of witness qualification under Frye.

West's argument is that he wants to probe whether or not word assignment (by the analyst) affects speaker ID, using the software.  West covers the historical ground as to the state's intention to use Owen at trial, his initial categorization was not as a testifying witness.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: cboldt on June 07, 2013, 08:39:34 AM
How come no one is asking him why he owns the Easy Voice website? He's trying to say "they" as though EV is separate from him somehow.

I think he's just a marketing agent for the software.  He testified that he does not know the math behind the analysis, and he demonstrated that he does not know the meaning of "Gaussian" (a math term) when West offered that as an easy question for Owen to demonstrate understanding of the analytical methods he was using.

Few minute recess as Owen e-mails material to the court.  The NIST review, as well as what passes for a transcript.

Mantei says that now what is being discussed is product (opinion), not methodology; and this hearing is supposed to be just about methodology.  I think West has the better argument, if word assignment has play in the methodology of speaker ID.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: RickyJim on June 07, 2013, 08:41:42 AM
I wonder what scientific work there is that proves there should be a particular correspondence between a person's ordinary speech, increased in frequency to scream level and the same person's true screams.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 07, 2013, 08:42:10 AM
BTW cboldt, thanks for your notes. I have a ton of things I really need to get done that don't include watching this hearing (even though I haven't been able to tear myself away yet) and it's good to know there's a concise, even handed summary being posted.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 07, 2013, 08:44:46 AM
I wonder what scientific work there is that proves there should be a particular correspondence between a person's ordinary speech, increased in frequency to scream level and the same person's true screams.

I don't guess there is any, or it would've been mentioned by now.


BTW RJ, you probably know this already but you can download a demo of the Easy Voice and watch it work.
I haven't bothered.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: RickyJim on June 07, 2013, 08:53:04 AM
Owen's conclusion that it was not Zimmerman's voice was obtained by noting absence of semitones in the scream recording, vs. Zimmerman's usual speaking voice.  He increased the pitch of the normal speaking voice to match the pitch in the screams.  With the basic pitch being equalized, the semitone peaks did not match, between the two samples.  Semitone is a musical term, that can be corrollated with "harmonics."  Generally, they are defined points between octaves of pitch.  With semitones, the octave is carved into 12 tones.  Harmonics naturally occur in vibrating objects, and the harmonics don;t necessarily land exactly on semitone frequencies.
Why should the semitone peaks match?  West should ask him for the science behind that assertion.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 07, 2013, 08:56:11 AM
Why should the semitone peaks match?  West should ask him for the science behind that assertion.

Not saying it's science (fairly sure on my own research that it's not really--even though I'm less qualified than Owen is), but here are vids (produced by them, natch) explaining how things work.

http://www.easyvoicebiometrics.com/index.php?app=cms&ns=display&ref=videowalkthrough
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: cboldt on June 07, 2013, 08:59:01 AM
Why should the semitone peaks match?  West should ask him for the science behind that assertion.

Yes, that's a good point.  He claimed to have studied the correlation in spectrum between normal speech and voice, but wasn't tasked with producing support for the contention that the semitone (frequency or pitch) peaks are the same between normal voice and screaming, in any given human.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: cboldt on June 07, 2013, 09:01:22 AM
BTW cboldt, thanks for your notes. I have a ton of things I really need to get done that don't include watching this hearing (even though I haven't been able to tear myself away yet) and it's good to know there's a concise, even handed summary being posted.

Thanks.  I miss quite a bit, and occasionally mistake events 180 degrees from what really happened.  I have a couple kids graduating from high school today, and I'm sure I'll be fading out of sight here before Nelson's Court Festivities conclude.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: jjr495 on June 07, 2013, 09:21:28 AM
Owen said the program would not try to make an id on less than 16 seconds. So he doubled his eight second compilation. I would think there is a reason that the software creators had a reason for the 16 second limit. Why not take 1 second and repeat it 16 times.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: RickyJim on June 07, 2013, 09:53:41 AM
Owen just deFryed himself.  He admits he is the only one to use this method to identify screams.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: RickyJim on June 07, 2013, 09:58:17 AM
How the heck can Nelson accept this guy as passing Frye?
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: cboldt on June 07, 2013, 10:11:09 AM
West hammers Owen on looping in order to get a long enough sample for the software to process.  He is looking for authority that justifies looping, and notes the ramifications to conclusions caused by looping.  Owen has never done this "looping" before.  Another ding in the Frye framework - looping is a new and novel approach to use of the biometric software.  Owen has no authority that he is able to produce that explains the ramifications of looping against the reliability of the conclusion produced by the analytical method.

I don't think Owen knows why the 16 seconds of sample is at least preferred, if not required.  Is the sample intended to capture a range of vowel/consonant sounds?  West asks what is the minimum amount of speech required to support a reliable analysis?  Owen says 20 words.  West asks if 20 words includes the same word over and over, or is there a need for different words?  Owen says the machine is comparing 4 seconds of screams with 6 seconds of Zimmerman reenactment.  West gets Owen to admit that he (Owen) doesn't know which pieces of the (scream) loop are selected by the software.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: Cylinder on June 07, 2013, 10:16:36 AM
This goes directly to Ramirez. In that case, a tool mark match was a match because the expert said it was - there was no objective standard. Owen is saying basically the same thing.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: cboldt on June 07, 2013, 10:36:18 AM
West elicits that Owen has performed analysis other than from EZ Voice.  The defense doesn't have any of this, but Owen did send some spectrograms to Mantei.  Owen says he also sent a PowerPoint, and West says the defense doesn't have that, either.

West wants to know about the standards applied in aural spectrographic analysis.  Owen says the standards are available at his website, but what is there is not current.  Owen says there is a 12 step methodology that he teaches.  From memory, this is where Owen is self-disqualifying, as he does not adhere to the standards that he developed and published.  How much speech do you need under you standards?  24 words, plus clarity of recording.  Owen admits he does not have a sample that size, so he cannot make a conclusive/positive finding; any finding is couched in probability.

He also says that he does not have good evidence to work with.  His conclusion is simply that it is not probable the voice is Zimmerman.  West wonders if the probability is quantified.  Owen obfuscates.

West asks if Owen compared screams with normal voice side by side.  Owen says yes, West asks for a description of the method.  West asks Owen if he is aware of any published methods for doing this sort of comparison.  Owen goes on to explain how he does a comparison, without referring to any published study.  Owen finally says he is not aware of any studies.  West gives Owen an opportunity to raise any other points, not brought up in questioning, that relate to owen's aural/spectrographic analysis of the 911 call.  Owen has none.

West on to criteria other than number of words, that appear in the standards.  Same language, signal to noise.  West asks if "stress" on part of speaker is part of the standard; or if stress contributes to ability to reach a conclusion.  Owen says emotional state of speaker is part.  Other factors? Recording method, distance between speaker and recorder.  West asks what are the standards, and where, if anywhere, did you deviate.  Owen obfuscates.

West asks the minimum probability of error to warrant the label "probable."  Owen says FBI standard is less than 1% error rate.  Owen has tested his system, and it meets the 1% error rate.  This ducks the question, but sets the stage for West to ask if Owen is 99% sure of his conclusion.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: cboldt on June 07, 2013, 10:57:15 AM
Owen has only testified once (out of thousands of times not disqualified) using EZ Voice.  West asks if Owen was challenged in a Frye hearing in the case in Connecticut.  That was the Sheila Davalou case.  He asks Owen if there was an admissibility hearing, outside of the jury earshot, in that case.  Owen obfuscates.  Owen says that he doesn't think there was an official admissibility hearing in that case.  Owen did testify in that case, but Owen does not recall any challenge to the Frye or Daubert threshhold.

West is done.  Redirect examination.  Mantei rehabilitates Owen as far as inability to program/understand EZ Voice.  The example is microscope, which Owen knows how to use, but not how to make.  Same with Skype.  Goes on to rehabilitate as to uncertainty or deviation from preferred samples (not) precluding analysis.  Mantei asks about the pitch change being an alteration of the evidence, Owen obfuscates (he could have answered this).  Mantei points out that the pitch change was performed on a known Zimmerman voice (from the recreation).  Mantei goes on to looping, and says that Owen said that looping was not new or novel - West objects, saying that Owen testified that it was new or novel.  Nelson allows the line of inquiry to proceed.  Owen says he's looped before.  What is new here is EZ Voice demands a sample length.  Mantei raises the point that deviation from a standard doesn't render the opinion invalid (West never said that, he asked the witness to quantify the effect of deviation).  Mantei says basically this, that the deviation affects the certainty of conclusion.  Owen says that positive conclusions are generally not obtainable in this field.  Mantei is done.

West on re-cross.  Focuses on standards.  May analysts do whatever they want and it is okay?  No, says Owen.  Anything less that 10 words precludes reaching a conclusion (that might be useful for defense), but the standards are more in the nature of guidelines.  West says that this analysis includes substantial deviations - Owen says he did not substantially deviate, he just had less than 20 words.  Owen says he had 10 words.  Owen wants a definition of "phonetically balanced."  West says "recognizable words."  West asks how much money have you been paid?  Zero.  That is nuts.  He worked for free for Orlando Sentinel!  West makes a remark about sale of software.  He's being paid for his testimony today.

The court is done with this witness.  Court is in recess until 2 p.m.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: RickyJim on June 07, 2013, 10:57:39 AM
Apparently they haven't asked Owen to compare the screams with the now available Trayvon Martin speech.  I wonder why.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: cboldt on June 07, 2013, 11:06:24 AM
Owen said the program would not try to make an id on less than 16 seconds. So he doubled his eight second compilation. I would think there is a reason that the software creators had a reason for the 16 second limit. Why not take 1 second and repeat it 16 times.

The software creators are touting a certain degree of reliability, and in order to get that, some parameters regarding the sample have to be set.  Owen should have been able to explain the principles behind this (given a 140 Hz nominal voice pitch, 16 seconds gives a fixed number of "cycles" to work with - about 2200, more for harmonics and semitones) and approximate the resulting loss in reliability as the sample size is reduced.

To take an extreme example, if I ask you the probability of tossing heads or tails (and you don't know if the coin is "weighted" or "loaded" to use dice parlance), and give you one toss, you will say either 100% or 0%, depending on the result of your sample toss.  It takes more samples in order to have confidence in your conclusion.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: Redbrow on June 07, 2013, 11:20:50 AM
Apparently they haven't asked Owen to compare the screams with the now available Trayvon Martin speech.  I wonder why.

Because Martin's voice is noticeably lower and deeper than Zimmerman's and even less probable to be the screamer on the 911 tapes by this charlatans ezbake software analysis.

The fact that a sample of Trayvon's voice has been kept away from scrutiny for this long speaks volumes.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: jjr495 on June 07, 2013, 11:32:34 AM
The software creators are touting a certain degree of reliability, and in order to get that, some parameters regarding the sample have to be set.  Owen should have been able to explain the principles behind this (given a 140 Hz nominal voice pitch, 16 seconds gives a fixed number of "cycles" to work with - about 2200, more for harmonics and semitones) and approximate the resulting loss in reliability as the sample size is reduced.

To take an extreme example, if I ask you the probability of tossing heads or tails (and you don't know if the coin is "weighted" or "loaded" to use dice parlance), and give you one toss, you will say either 100% or 0%, depending on the result of your sample toss.  It takes more samples in order to have confidence in your conclusion.
Sorry I was being sarcastic. My wife has the same reaction to me all the time. So do my students.
I am a professor and teach and use  statistics, probability, and spectral analysis in my work on turbulence.
Pitch is the fundamental frequency produced by the vocal chords. The formants are secondary, tertiary, etc, resonances in the throat. When you change the pitch of your voice the formants dont necessarily scale up. So by increasing the frequency Owen is not scaling the formant changes correctly. He should never have used this technique.
Your coin analogy is correct. One needs to build a sampling distribution to assign probability. There is no sampling distribution for screams because nobody has done the research. Further, Nakasone, testified that nobody could do this research at the present time.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: ding7777 on June 07, 2013, 11:34:08 AM
Owen compares too-short audio clip to a partial fingerprint, says could be used to rule out people.

If you only had 1 or 2 ridges and "looped" them to get a big enough partial, then, imo, 100% of the population could be ruled out
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: cboldt on June 07, 2013, 11:43:20 AM
Sorry I was being sarcastic. My wife has the same reaction to me all the time. So do my students.
I am a professor and teach and use  statistics, probability, and spectral analysis in my work on turbulence.
Pitch is the fundamental frequency produced by the vocal chords. The formants are secondary, tertiary, etc, resonances in the throat. When you change the pitch of your voice the formants dont necessarily scale up. So by increasing the frequency Owen is not scaling the formant changes correctly. He should never have used this technique.
Your coin analogy is correct. One needs to build a sampling distribution to assign probability. There is no sampling distribution for screams because nobody has done the research. Further, Nakasone, testified that nobody could do this research at the present time.

West was trying to get to the questions about scaling up the pitch vs. the spectrum if the human scales up the pitch.  Owen claimed to have undertaken a study, published in 1985, that relates to this subject.

My point, which I now know you understand, given your background, is that maybe 4 seconds is enough, depending on what is independently known.  The software is for dummies who don't understand the physics and math, so "forces" them to provide a good sample.

I'd have to revisit Nakasone's testimony, but my take was not that the research couldn't be done.  The research has been done, and there is no way to scientifically analyze screams and correlate them with normal voice examples.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 07, 2013, 11:54:16 AM
What happened re the materials Owen was going to email in? I had to leave before they came back from that recess.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: RickyJim on June 07, 2013, 11:57:20 AM
Another "expert" (http://abcnews.go.com/US/screams-heart-george-zimmerman-murder-trial/story?id=19345658#.UbIeD5ywVr1)  that tested both Martin and Zimmerman against the screams.  Notice who the reporter is.  ::)
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: jjr495 on June 07, 2013, 11:58:29 AM
The research has been done, and there is no way to scientifically analyze screams and correlate them with normal voice examples.
The research has not been done. Nakasone described the most recent studies in which people are made to talk over noise. This is called Lombard speech. There are very big changes that occur to spectral signatures in Lombard speech. Nakasone noted that Lombard is the outer limit of what software algorithms had been modified to sample.
In order to train software to id mortal screams a database of mortal screams is necessary. Someone did collect roller coaster screams. Of course the other part of the equation is the exemplar. Could the software ever be trained to take normal or perhaps shouts to identify screams. Not likely.
Anybody claiming they can do it today is "disturbing".
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 07, 2013, 12:00:35 PM
the EZTalk software people have a vid on their site where they tried to fool the software by including other random noise. I didn't bother to watch.

Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: Evil Chinchilla on June 07, 2013, 12:01:15 PM
Because Martin's voice is noticeably lower and deeper than Zimmerman's and even less probable to be the screamer on the 911 tapes by this charlatans ezbake software analysis.

The fact that a sample of Trayvon's voice has been kept away from scrutiny for this long speaks volumes.
I can't get the ABC website entry at the link posted earlier in the thread to open when I go there.

I can see they have something posted there, but my ancient computer won't open it.

Can you hear TM's voice in that audio clip (or whatever ABC's linked there)?
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 07, 2013, 12:06:27 PM
I can't get the ABC website entry at the link posted earlier in the thread to open when I go there.

I can see they have something posted there, but my ancient computer won't open it.

Can you hear TM's voice in that audio clip (or whatever ABC's linked there)?

Yes. It's deep--not Barry White deep but deeper than GZ's and also a little...sharp. Have you tried a different browser? I couldn't get it to open in FireFox but it opened in Safari.

Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: RickyJim on June 07, 2013, 12:14:28 PM
Trayvon says "Ooooh, he coming for that". and "We need a behind the scenes.".  They are very clear.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: cboldt on June 07, 2013, 12:20:04 PM
West cuts off Nelson's threat to conduct a Richardson hearing against the defense by pointing out that the state referenced the correct procedure, and he (West) is willing to submit to it.  Funny, because the state had just told Nelosn what the procedure should be.  Nelson sua sponte elevated the threat level against the defense.

West produces his correspondence with one expert for in camera review.  The court will decide what parts of that are work product, and which parts are the expert's conclusions.  Expert conclusions and how they get there are discoverable.  Nelson rules in favor of the defense.  The communications are not in the nature of expert reports that are discoverable.

Now the same, but for a different witness.  O'Mara produces the printed copies of e-mail correspondence.  Nelson revieing at the bench.  Considerably bigger pile of correspondence, takes a few minutes to review.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: cboldt on June 07, 2013, 12:24:25 PM
Nelson has reviewed the packet that O'Mara presented.  There is nothing in those files that requires disclosure to the state.  One more packet, 6 or 8 pieces.  Dr. French.  The state says the court need not review.

Next witness is Reich.  WooHoo!  I'm putting on my psychedelic headphones.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: Redbrow on June 07, 2013, 12:26:09 PM
West cuts off Nelson's threat to conduct a Richardson hearing against the defense by pointing out that the state referenced the correct procedure, and he (West) is willing to submit to it.  Funny, because the state had just told Nelosn what the procedure should be.  Nelson sua sponte elevated the threat level against the defense.

West produces his correspondence with one expert for in camera review.  The court will decide what parts of that are work product, and which parts are the expert's conclusions.  Expert conclusions and how they get there are discoverable.  Nelson rules in favor of the defense.  The communications are not in the nature of expert reports that are discoverable.

Now the same, but for a different witness.  O'Mara produces the printed copies of e-mail correspondence.  Nelson revieing at the bench.  Considerably bigger pile of correspondence, takes a few minutes to review.

Nelson is so blatantly biased against the defense that she immediately went for a chainsaw when a scalpel is all that was required.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: cboldt on June 07, 2013, 12:29:10 PM
First exchange between Mantei and Reich, Reich comes back, "that (your question) is all garbled."

Reich goes through his academic degrees and testimony.  Repeats question of Mantei as to what work he (Reich) had done, academically, then gives his academic work experience.  Reich retired from academia in 2000, but "not from life, and nit from work."  He is asked about his consulting work.  Acoustic analysis, sound of gunshot, speaker ID.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 07, 2013, 12:31:44 PM
Reich's critical listening skills seem a little rusty today.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 07, 2013, 12:32:37 PM
You'd think a guy who's been in court before would be able to not sound like a senile old drunk.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: cboldt on June 07, 2013, 12:34:55 PM
Again, Mantei asks Reich "Were you contacted by the Washington Post," and Reich couldn't hear or make sense of the question.  Keep in mind this is a phone connection.  Mantei had to repeat the question.  Reich picked up the case out of curiosity.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 07, 2013, 12:35:54 PM
Really disappointed Mantei chose to spell "aural", was looking forward to what Reich might say to that.

Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 07, 2013, 12:37:30 PM
Nelson was trying to get Reich to stop talking, and he wasn't listening. I love that this guy is supposed to be an expert listener.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: RickyJim on June 07, 2013, 12:38:18 PM
Mantei's shtick: as long as you are using the right words for what you are doing, you get to testify under Frye.  You use your ears, a computer, etc, you are OK.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 07, 2013, 12:39:09 PM
Oh good. Now we're talking about WW II and charcoal on paper.

Guy's a trip. Tell me again why the state wants to use him?
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: cboldt on June 07, 2013, 12:47:57 PM
Oh good. Now we're talking about WW II and charcoal on paper.

Guy's a trip. Tell me again why the state wants to use him?

It does call Bernardo's judgment into question.  The state has no obligation to have its own witness testify.

Mantei admitting there are many factors that limit ability to analyze, including distance from speaker.

Reich says that the people who gave him the tape represented all the sounds were non-speech, but he found words being said.  He states his conclusion, that almost all of the screaming sounds are that of Martin.  Reich says that is preliminary (prompted by Mantei), because the strength of the scream signal was weak (-30 dB).

Reich referred to jail calls, Zimmerman re-creation, and Zimmerman scream re-creation as exemplars.  100's of hours listening.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 07, 2013, 12:48:44 PM
Tell me again why the state wants to use him?

They're hard up for experts who will say what they need, and you never know what a jury will buy.

Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: cboldt on June 07, 2013, 12:51:46 PM
Reich is called to do aircraft black box review, so has some knowledge of the particular background noises that appear from that environment.  In that environment, I would think word recognition would be valuable.

Direct exam over.  Now cross exam by West.  Nelson says "You may have to come up here so he (Reich) can hear you."
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 07, 2013, 01:02:31 PM
Wow. Reich's testimony would be a lot better after a few drinks.

For me, I mean. He's already had enough.

Some of what he says aren't even words.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: cboldt on June 07, 2013, 01:07:36 PM
Wow. Reich's testimony would be a lot better after a few drinks.

Boomhauer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boomhauer)

Jeffrey "Wheels" Dexter Boomhauer III, almost always referred to as simply Boomhauer, is a fictional character in the animated series King of the Hill. The character is voiced by series creator Mike Judge, and is known for his nearly incomprehensible speech.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 07, 2013, 01:09:21 PM
Yeah...that about sums it up, lol.

Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 07, 2013, 01:09:35 PM
Some of what he says aren't even words.

They're challenging for the untrained listener to detect.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: cboldt on June 07, 2013, 01:11:45 PM
They're challenging for the untrained listener to detect.

He gets to practice on his own speech.

To be fair, I think the speakerphone hookup makes things much worse, in this case.  The technology is breaking down.  Court will take recess and call him back.  I hope they work on the technology a bit.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 07, 2013, 01:12:29 PM
They're challenging for the untrained listener to detect.

I freely admit I'm not in Dr. Reich's class.

Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 07, 2013, 01:14:30 PM
He gets to practice on his own speech.

To be fair, I think the speakerphone hookup makes things much worse, in this case.  The technology is breaking down.  Court will take recess and call him back.  I hope they work on the technology a bit.

Yes. I appreciate not wanting to disrupt people's lives and all, but there should be some sort of prohibition against using a speakerphone to conduct testimony.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: RickyJim on June 07, 2013, 01:20:07 PM
I have good luck with using SKYPE, AIM and YM in doing voice chats with friends over computer speakers.  I think quality is much better than heard here.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: jjr495 on June 07, 2013, 01:20:47 PM
JP French is apparently one of the defense's consultants. Very impressive CV.
I have viewed thousands of academic CVs. Owen's CV is the first that I have read which mixes publications and presentations together. The research he cited in his testimony was a conference speech. Probably not peer reviewed either. 
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: cboldt on June 07, 2013, 01:38:12 PM
JP French is apparently one of the defense's consultants. Very impressive CV.
I have viewed thousands of academic CVs. Owen's CV is the first that I have read which mixes publications and presentations together. The research he cited in his testimony was a conference speech. Probably not peer reviewed either.

Download Prof French's summary CV in pdf format (http://www.jpfrench.com/docs/frenchcv.pdf).
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: RickyJim on June 07, 2013, 01:42:48 PM
I hope the defense will use its witnesses to rebut the state witnesses' claims that their analysis is accepted science for analyzing screams. 
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 07, 2013, 01:50:05 PM
Dr. N was a defense expert, right? He was called out of order because of a work commitment.

Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: jjr495 on June 07, 2013, 01:52:58 PM
Did Reich say he heard "Get off of me, Get off of me"? Sounds like W8
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 07, 2013, 02:20:52 PM
MOM is laughing and shaking his head. I don't know how West is keeping a straight face.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: RickyJim on June 07, 2013, 02:24:20 PM
West asked why Reich's transcripts are different for the words before and after "those as****es always get away" between the WashPo and a more recent transcript.  Reich answers that the middle part remained the same and that it requires special listening abilities to hear the middle part correctly because some people heard a racial slur there.  He is confusing this with the f*****g ***** part.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 07, 2013, 02:27:07 PM
Reich isn't done yet. He estimates another couple of weeks.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 07, 2013, 02:34:56 PM
Did Reich just say there was no evidence GZ had been punched in the nose so he didn't take into account how that might effect someone's voice (after he said something like that would effect someone's voice)?

West has to take a moment to chat with MOM.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 07, 2013, 02:39:33 PM
It's official. Reich didn't identify any vocalizations as possibly those of W-6, or anyone but Martin, Zimmerman, W-11, W-20, and the dispatcher.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: cboldt on June 07, 2013, 02:40:12 PM
The state is done, after Reich.  No plan to call H&H?  No need to qualify H&H?

Not sure if the defense will call French this afternoon, or will do so tomorrow morning.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 07, 2013, 02:42:20 PM
I missed something.

Reich said something was all over the internet, and West said he hadn't heard it before. Did anyone catch what it was?
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: RickyJim on June 07, 2013, 02:45:58 PM
Reich said that some people heard the N word instead of the A word always get away.  I agree with West.  I never heard that before.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 07, 2013, 02:46:48 PM
No need to qualify H&H?

I wouldn't be surprised if the state doesn't plan to call them. Their findings were inconclusive, and if accepted they might help the defense more than the prosecution.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: jjr495 on June 07, 2013, 02:48:35 PM
The state is done, after Reich.  No plan to call H&H?  No need to qualify H&H?

Not sure if the defense will call French this afternoon, or will do so tomorrow morning.
So H&H are out? The state didn't like their conclusion. They were the best of the state's three in terms of scientific quality.

cbolt. Maybe I got it wrong. OMara had Nelson read the notes from French to determine if it was work product. I thought I heard Mantei say they didnt care about the notes because he won't testify.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 07, 2013, 02:49:09 PM
Frye hearing continued tomorrow. Taking up curfew.

Bernie brings up passport.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 07, 2013, 02:50:07 PM
GZ would like his curfew raised to 11 so he can meet with the lawyers etc.

Bernie objected.

Nelson raised it to ten.

Recess until tomorrow at 9 30.

Bernie is a little ...heh. Can I say that word here?
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: cboldt on June 07, 2013, 02:50:20 PM
So H&H are out? The state didn't like their conclusion. They were the best of the state's three in terms of scientific quality.

cbolt. Maybe I got it wrong. OMara had Nelson read the notes from French to determine if it was work product. I thought I heard Mantei say they didnt care about the notes because he won't testify.

State has three more witnesses.  Frye hearing continued until 9:30 tomorrow.

Nelson granted a modified curfew to Zimmerman, over the state's objection.  He is allowed to be with his attorney, curfew extended from 6 pm to 10:30 pm.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 07, 2013, 02:50:53 PM
Reich said that some people heard the N word instead of the A word always get away.  I agree with West.  I never heard that before.

Thanks. I also haven't heard that before.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 07, 2013, 02:51:30 PM
State has three more witnesses.  Frye hearing continued until 9:30 tomorrow.

Nelson granted a modified curfew to Zimmerman, over the state's objection.  He is allowed to be with his attorney, curfew extended from 6 pm to 10:30 pm.

I thought she said ten?
Not that it matters much.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 07, 2013, 02:52:14 PM
State has three more witnesses. 

I think you mean defense.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: cboldt on June 07, 2013, 02:54:28 PM
So H&H are out? The state didn't like their conclusion. They were the best of the state's three in terms of scientific quality.

cbolt. Maybe I got it wrong. OMara had Nelson read the notes from French to determine if it was work product. I thought I heard Mantei say they didnt care about the notes because he won't testify.

I don't know for sure that H&H are out, but they did not testify for the state in this Frye hearing, so I assume they are not qualified as a formality (they may be qualified, just that the state didn't present them for the court's blessing), and it may be that the defense has no objection to H&H testimony, so wouldn't challenge them as witnesses in any event.

The purpose of Nelson reading the notes between counsel and experts was to determine whether or not West and O'Mara had to produce those written materials to the state.  Defense experts prepared no reports, so whatever defense counsel had/has is attorney work product, not expert witness product.  Mantei cared about those notes, but he can't see them.  He has to deal with the expert's testimony on the fly.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: cboldt on June 07, 2013, 02:56:41 PM
I think you mean defense.

Yes indeedy!  Thank you.  State is done.  Defense has three more witnesses to call for purposes of Frye qualification.

And I'm in my monkey suit, ready for graduation ceremony.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 07, 2013, 03:00:16 PM
Defense experts prepared no reports, so whatever defense counsel had/has is attorney work product, not expert witness product.

So none of the opinions the defense got from their experts are discoverable? That would be surprising to me.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 07, 2013, 03:01:11 PM
Yes indeedy!  Thank you.  State is done.  Defense has three more witnesses to call for purposes of Frye qualification.

And I'm in my monkey suit, ready for graduation ceremony.

Enjoy it!

BTW, does this mean you're soon liable for 4 years of college x2?

 ;D
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 07, 2013, 03:03:37 PM
So none of the opinions the defense got from their experts are discoverable? That would be surprising to me.

So far that's what it means.

If the expert produces a report the report needs to be shared. If they just have a friendly email chat about it, then it's work product. I really kind of thought Nelson wasn't going to look at the emails in the second folder MOM handed her, it was an inch or more thick, but I think she read (or at least skimmed) every one before ruling they were work product. Ruefully, I might add.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 07, 2013, 03:06:13 PM
http://www.tracertek.com/

Also a site owned by Tom Owen. Shares a template and mailing address with Easy Voice.

It's almost like Owen is just trying to be an expert to fluff his businesses instead of actually caring about the process like say Dr. N.

Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: RickyJim on June 07, 2013, 03:15:09 PM
So none of the opinions the defense got from their experts are discoverable? That would be surprising to me.
If they are just rebuttal against Owen and Reich, then maybe they don't have to be discoverable.  I don't think the defense should put anybody on to contradict Dr. Nakasone and claim that it is possible to tell Zimmerman is the one screaming on the 911 call.  Now if they call somebody to confirm Witness 6's testimony that there is a distinct echo to be heard from a speaker on his lawn, facing the house across the dog path, then that is a completely different matter. 
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 07, 2013, 03:18:41 PM
If they are just rebuttal against Owen and Reich, then maybe they don't have to be discoverable.  I don't think the defense should put anybody on to contradict Dr. Nakasone and claim that it is possible to tell Zimmerman is the one screaming on the 911 call.  Now if they call somebody to confirm Witness 6's testimony that there is a distinct echo to be heard from a speaker on his lawn, facing the house across the dog path, then that is a completely different matter.

Nakasone was a defense witness. He was called out of order because of work commitments.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: jjr495 on June 07, 2013, 04:38:05 PM
So now we know that Easy Voice Biometrics (http://speechpro-usa.com/product/biometric) is a product of SpeechPro that Jeralyn mentions  here (http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/4/3/03733/45115/media/Voice-Biometrics-Conference-Convenes-in-NY-). They are a participant in the NIST evaluations. SpeechPro claims they only need 3 seconds of speech for an ID. The algorithms used by the software are probably tested and peer reviewed.
Unfortunately SpeechPro offers very little technical/standards info about their product on their website.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: RickyJim on June 07, 2013, 04:42:04 PM
I'd be amazed if they claim the ability to compare ordinary speech with screams.  The only claim I have ever heard on that is Owen's 1985 study.  Has anybody tracked it down yet?  i doubt it was published in a peer reviewed journal.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 07, 2013, 05:02:02 PM
Owen's bibliography (http://www.owlinvestigations.com/publications.html) has two entries for 1985.

Quote
Tom Owen, Advanced Signal Processing Techniques (International Association for Identification, 70th Annual convention, Savannah, GA July 1985)

Tom Owen, Restoration of Sound (International Symposium on B. Pilsudski Cylinders, Hakkido University, Sapporo, Japan. Lecture and Session Chairman September 1985)

It looks like both were papers presented at gatherings. No publishers are mentioned, so if they were published it would probably be as one of the collected papers from those gatherings. I guess that means they would only be peer reviewed if peer review was a prerequisite for presenting the paper.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: jjr495 on June 07, 2013, 05:03:19 PM
I'd be amazed if they claim the ability to compare ordinary speech with screams.  The only claim I have ever heard on that is Owen's 1985 study.  Has anybody tracked it down yet?  i doubt it was published in a peer reviewed journal.
I thought he said he put it in a video and presented it at a conference. So at most there might be a conference abstract and no paper. None of the conference presentation titles at that time in his CV suggest anything about stressed speech. 
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: RickyJim on June 07, 2013, 05:09:14 PM
Presenting a methodology at a conference doesn't make it standard science.  Notice he couldn't mention anybody else who after 28 years has also been doing it.  Does that make it satisfy the Frye test?
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 07, 2013, 05:11:23 PM
http://www.easyvoicebiometrics.com/index.php?app=cms&ns=display&ref=evbtechspecs


check out the pdf under 'additional info'.



Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 07, 2013, 05:13:23 PM
None of the conference presentation titles at that time in his CV suggest anything about stressed speech.

That doesn't mean it couldn't be included in something broader, like 'Advanced Signal Processing Techniques'.

This is the first I've heard of the study. Is there a link to something on it? Or was it brought up in his testimony today? I missed that, and I haven't gotten around to reading that part of the thread.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: RickyJim on June 07, 2013, 05:21:27 PM
http://www.easyvoicebiometrics.com/index.php?app=cms&ns=display&ref=evbtechspecs


check out the pdf under 'additional info'.
They say nothing about preparing samples for comparison by pitch adjustment.  I hope the experts will address that issue tomorrow.  I wish West asked Owen about how many tests he has run to prove he can correctly match extreme screams to speech.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 07, 2013, 06:04:42 PM
They say nothing about preparing samples for comparison by pitch adjustment.  I hope the experts will address that issue tomorrow.  I wish West asked Owen about how many tests he has run to prove he can correctly match extreme screams to speech.

actually it does. it says it's an auxiliary method and that it's not as reliable.

That's why I suggested you give it a glance.

Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: RickyJim on June 07, 2013, 06:29:05 PM
If you are talking about page 5 of the pdf, they say that about the "Pitch Statistics Analysis Method" but that assumes you are comparing two samples without adjusting one so that their fundamentals match.  The latter is something that seems to be invalid and it is what Owen does.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: jjr495 on June 07, 2013, 06:37:25 PM
If you are talking about page 5 of the pdf, they say that about the "Pitch Statistics Analysis Method" but that assumes you are comparing two samples without adjusting one so that their fundamentals match.  The latter is something that seems to be invalid and it is what Owen does.
I think the line "We can control and change this frequency (tone) depending on emotions and stress." caused the confusion. "We" in that sentence referred to all humans in our speech.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 07, 2013, 07:01:32 PM
This is the first I've heard of the study. Is there a link to something on it? Or was it brought up in his testimony today? I missed that, and I haven't gotten around to reading that part of the thread.

OK, I found the part of the thread where Owen's 1985 study is first discussed.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 07, 2013, 07:06:15 PM
In order to train software to id mortal screams a database of mortal screams is necessary. Someone did collect roller coaster screams.

I would think by now there would be a database of people screaming in the background of 911 calls.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: TalkLeft on June 07, 2013, 07:09:11 PM
One of the defense experts is Dr. James Wayman. He blasted Owen and Pineau (http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/06/voice-forensics-experts-cast-doubt-on-orlando-sentinel-analysis-of-trayvon-martin-911-tape/) when their opinions first came out. He is a  San Jose State University professor in the field of speech science with some heavy credentials (https://www.uclaextension.edu/pages/InstructorBio.aspx?instid=20190).

The judge reviewed the emails to see if anything in them amounted to an opinion or conclusion -- it's not that they haven't provided opinions, just that the state thought the emails would contain opinions which would make them discoverable and the Judge said they do not, so they are not subject to discovery.

Quote
James Wayman PhD, Office of Research and Graduate Studies, San Jose State University, San Jose, California. SJSU served as the U.S. National Biometric Test Center from 1997-2000, with Dr. Wayman as the director, reporting to the Clinton administration through the Security Policy Board. Prior to his current position, he was a full-time researcher for the Department of Defense in the areas of technical security and biometrics. He also invented and developed a biometric system based on the acoustic resonance of the human head. Dr. Wayman holds four patents in speech processing; is co-editor of Biometric Systems with Jain, Maltoni, and Maio (Springer-Verlag, 2005); and is the author of dozens of articles in books, peer-reviewed technical journals, and conference proceedings on biometrics, speech compression, image processing, and network control. He is a "Principal U.K. Expert" and Working Group 1 Head for Delegation for the British Standards Institute national body to the international standards committee SC37 on biometrics; editor of ISO/IEC 19794-13 "Voice Data Format"; Fellow of the UK IET; contractor to the U.S. DoD and FBI; Honorary Professor of Biometrics, University of Kent; and member of the National Research Council Committee "Whither Biometrics?", the NRC Panel for Information Technology, and the former NRC committee on "Authentication Technologies and their Privacy Implications." He has been a paid advisor on biometrics to nine national governments on five continents.

Dr. Peter French (http://www.jpfrench.com/staff.htm) is another defense expert.

Quote
Prof Peter French (Director) is President of the International Association for Forensic Phonetics and Acoustics, a Fellow of the International Society for Phonetic Sciences, a Member of the International Association of Forensic Linguists and a Fellow of the Institute of Acoustics. He is Honorary Professor in the Department of Language and Linguistic Science at the University of York. As one of the world's most experienced experts in the field of forensic speech, language and audio analysis, he carries out work on forensic phonetics, linguistics, sound enhancement and the authentication of recordings.

His CV is here (http://www.jpfrench.com/docs/frenchcv.pdf).

The third defense expert is G.R. Doddington, who seems to a pioneer in the field of speech recognition. A ton of other experts, NIST, NATO, U. S. military and universities around the world still cite his work. He must be retired because he has no current website.

Zimmerman's experts are definitely impressive.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 07, 2013, 07:16:40 PM
I think the line "We can control and change this frequency (tone) depending on emotions and stress." caused the confusion. "We" in that sentence referred to all humans in our speech.

Not really sure what your point is. Obviously the "we" refers to all humans.

Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: jjr495 on June 07, 2013, 07:45:20 PM
Not really sure what your point is. Obviously the "we" refers to all humans.
Sorry. I was apparently incorrect. I was trying to identify why you thought the EVB document talked about adjusting the pitch of a sample.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 07, 2013, 08:27:24 PM
Sorry. I was apparently incorrect. I was trying to identify why you thought the EVB document talked about adjusting the pitch of a sample.

Heh.
I mentioned the PDF just because it was the only place EVB mentioned it--and they said it was less accurate and needed a longer sample. Both things Owen didn't bother to mention (or mentioned the exact opposite) in court.

 ;)
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: Zapper on June 07, 2013, 10:28:02 PM
You'd think a guy who's been in court before would be able to not sound like a senile old drunk.

People with critical thinking skills might surmise that people with degrees in speech pathology sometimes have speech pathology themselves and why they become interested.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: Redbrow on June 07, 2013, 11:22:51 PM
People with critical thinking skills might surmise that people with degrees in speech pathology sometimes have speech pathology themselves and why they become interested.

People with critical thinking skills don't surmise/assume anything. People with critical thinking skills rely on facts, good evidence and proof.

Do you have any evidence or proof of this alleged speech pathology? Or even it's prevalence in speech pathology degree holders?
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: DebFrmHell on June 07, 2013, 11:25:43 PM
So far that's what it means.

If the expert produces a report the report needs to be shared. If they just have a friendly email chat about it, then it's work product. I really kind of thought Nelson wasn't going to look at the emails in the second folder MOM handed her, it was an inch or more thick, but I think she read (or at least skimmed) every one before ruling they were work product. Ruefully, I might add.

I got the impression that the emails were defining answers to questions posed by West in an effort to get better acquainted with the material he would be confronted with during the Frye hearing.  I never really thought that it would be an opinion. 

I was surprised that Nelson took up her valuable time reading every one of them.

Not really   ;)
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 07, 2013, 11:31:55 PM
I got the impression that the emails were defining answers to questions posed by West in an effort to get better acquainted with the material he would be confronted with during the Frye hearing.

That makes sense. Thank you.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 08, 2013, 12:28:01 AM
Video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5nwieXemy0) of 6/7/13 hearing, Part 1, to first recess, 73m 40s
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: Lousy1 on June 08, 2013, 02:00:44 AM
People with critical thinking skills might surmise that people with degrees in speech pathology sometimes have speech pathology themselves and why they become interested.

In the same vein, does his apparent lack of listening skills qualify him as a aural analyst?
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 08, 2013, 04:05:29 AM
He is saying what the NSA and CIA do.  How the hell does he know?

If he does know, it would most likely be because he himself, or people known to him, have been engaged to train some of their personnel.

Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 08, 2013, 05:34:56 AM
That makes sense. Thank you.

or it's just a kind of sneaky way to get something past the prosecution.

But lawyers would never...you know...cheat, right?

By putting the material into email back and forths like that, it stays as work product. That Nelson read over each and every page before agreeing they were in fact work product despite being written is the clue.

But believe what you want. You will anyway.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 08, 2013, 05:50:02 AM
So Owen did a forensic analysis of the NEN call, using critical listening skills, and managed not to notice that it's not a 911 call. Impressive.

6/7/13 hearing, 21:16 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5nwieXemy0#t=21m16s) 

Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: cboldt on June 08, 2013, 05:56:44 AM
I got the impression that the emails were defining answers to questions posed by West in an effort to get better acquainted with the material he would be confronted with during the Frye hearing.  I never really thought that it would be an opinion. 

They could be "are you available," "are you qualified," "what are your qualifications," sort of intro stuff, as well as apprising the experts of the case.  Additional input to the expert/consultant (there is a distinction) is generally evidence, maybe opinions or reports of opposing experts.  Good lawyers don't lead experts.  The experts are led by the evidence.

Then, along the lines you mention, the consultant may suggest weaknesses in the reports of opposing experts (this is clearly protected attorney work product) by way of assertions or questions about standards, methodologies, assumptions made by opposing experts, external evidence not taken into account (sounds by W6, televisions in the room where the 911 caller is and so forth) and so forth - substantive in a general sense, but not stating any particular conclusion based on the evidence in this case.  Nelson would be looking for remarks where the expert independently evaluated the evidence with an eye on forming an independent opinion.  Absent remarks along those lines, there is nothing in the nature of "report and/or conclusions," and that is the material that is discoverable under the discovery rule, 3.220.

In the realm of expert testimony, the defense is obliged to produce ...

reports or statements of experts made in connection with the particular case, including results of physical or mental examinations and of scientific tests, experiments, or comparisons


As to the distinction between consultant and expert, the consultant can analyze the evidence, and might (being independent) reach a conclusion that is unfavorable to the defense.  This person would not be called to testify, but might be very good at poking holes in framing of the case, the methodology, and the exact conclusions reached by the state's experts, even though the consultant might have an opinion that comports with the state's case.  That is in the nature of attorney work product, and is not discoverable.

Any time I am asked to review evidence, I insist on being taken on as a consultant, because the only things that lead my thought process are the evidence in the case, and scientific, engineering and technical materials.  It is common for me to form a preliminary opinion that is not favorable to the side that contacts me.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: cboldt on June 08, 2013, 06:04:28 AM
By putting the material into email back and forths like that, it stays as work product. That Nelson read over each and every page before agreeing they were in fact work product despite being written is the clue.

The fact that the communication is in e-mail form does not save it from being an expert's opinion (or partial opinion) based on the evidence or facts of this case.

A good expert will carefully limit what is said in any written form, and sequester notes, calculations and conclusions based on the evidence in this case.  Other materials, such as questions that might be put to opposing experts (either interrogatory or deposition questions), or requests for additional production of evidence are in the nature of attorney work product.

The judge has to review the communications to determine if any are in the nature of expert work product, where the expert is independently applying technical analysis to the evidence in this case.  That material is discoverable.  Criticizing another expert's opinion or analysis is not necessarily the same as forming your own opinion.  The critic may see gaps in analytical process, or gaps in logic (failure to connect the dots) or failure to account for a potentially critical variable, without coming to a contrary opinion.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: cboldt on June 08, 2013, 06:07:46 AM
I got the impression that the emails were defining answers to questions posed by West in an effort to get better acquainted with the material he would be confronted with during the Frye hearing.  I never really thought that it would be an opinion. 

I forgot to mention that another function of the expert is to educate.  If the person is named as an expert in the case, the expert's function is to educate the jury.  To demystify the technology behind the opinion, and put the technical analysis into terms that the jury can better understand.

A consultant (who might become a named expert in the case) can do the same thing for the lawyers.  Educate, I mean.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 08, 2013, 06:09:48 AM
The fact that the communication is in e-mail form does not save it from being an expert's opinion (or partial opinion) based on the evidence or facts of this case.

A good expert will carefully limit what is said in any written form, and sequester notes, calculations and conclusions based on the evidence in this case.  Other materials, such as questions that might be put to opposing experts (either interrogatory or deposition questions), or requests for additional production of evidence are in the nature of attorney work product.

The judge has to review the communications to determine if any are in the nature of expert work product, where the expert is independently applying technical analysis to the evidence in this case.  That material is discoverable.  Criticizing another expert's opinion or analysis is not necessarily the same as forming your own opinion.  The critic may see gaps in analytical process, or gaps in logic (failure to connect the dots) or failure to account for a potentially critical variable, without coming to a contrary opinion.

When I said emailing I was using a kind of shorthand for exactly that. I should've been more clear and apologize for not being so.

I tend to forget not everyone is thinking the same as I do.

Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: cboldt on June 08, 2013, 06:12:11 AM
Odd that Owen had to use a redacted (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5nwieXemy0#t=26m47s) version of the 911 call.  Serino had an unredacted version for his last interview (http://www.mysanfordherald.com/view/full_story/19101074/article-Video--audio-tell-George-Zimmerman%E2%80%99s-account-of-Trayvon-Martin-shooting-?instance=home_news_right) of Zimmerman. It's near the end of 2/29-3.

I find it odd that Owen is even entertained as a testifying witness.  He was questioned yesterday on the work he did for Orlando Sentinel, which only had public evidence.  I don't think the state ever hired him, except to testify yesterday.  That is, I don't think the state provided him with any evidence (which would, presumably, be the best evidence available), nor did the state task him with forming an opinion and preparing a report.

My hunch is the state drew him in at this late time just to make work for the defense.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: cboldt on June 08, 2013, 06:17:32 AM
When I said emailing I was using a kind of shorthand for exactly that. I should've been more clear and apologize for not being so.

I tend to forget not everyone is thinking the same as I do.

No sweat, and I didn't think you were of a mind that the form of communication (e-mail vs. printed copy) was a distinguishing factor.  I just used your remark in a literal sense to expound on how the court will find that a communication is in the nature of the expert forming an opinion on the facts in evidence in this case.

I make the same "mistake" in forgetting that readers aren't inside my head; and frequently make remarks that are inaccurate (at best) if taken literally.
Title: Re: June 7th Hearing
Post by: DebFrmHell on June 08, 2013, 09:12:44 AM
or it's just a kind of sneaky way to get something past the prosecution.

But lawyers would never...you know...cheat, right?

By putting the material into email back and forths like that, it stays as work product. That Nelson read over each and every page before agreeing they were in fact work product despite being written is the clue.

But believe what you want. You will anyway.

Actually, that is what I got from the way Don West was describing what was contained within the emails.  Not No Matter.